Super Smash Bros. Melee 2 - Should Smash 4 be closely similar (gameplay wise) to Melee?

[Crome]

I don't think sm4shnwill be as good as melee. Melee was a happy accident, and has been around for 12 years. I'd be happy if sm4sh was around PM level of competitiveness.

 

[κomıc]

I wish there was an option for it being "Brawl+" because I loved that mod.

Anyhow, I think the balance sitting between Melee and Brawl in terms of balance is fine.

 

[synesthe-sia]

I want a game that can take the best from both and put them together.

So they should just release Melee HD with King Dedede? I'd like that.

 

[Funkermonster]

I want Smash 4 to be its own game and not Melee 2 or Brawl 2, but I do wish it leaned slightly more towards Melee than Brawl. I just hope the game gets a little faster (Demo was a little floaty like everyone said) and a tad more aggressive and combo oriented. I heard there was little-to-no Smash DI in the Demos and its unknown if they will ever put it into the final build of the game. I dunno about everyone else, but I personally hope they keep it that way, more combos than ever right?

But If I could pick only one mechanic to return from melee, it'd be....

Spoiler

http://www.ssbwiki.com/images/8/8c/Wdfixed.gif
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/t_original/s0i3ihx2z8ywzyyxay7n.gif[/spoiler]

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

I'd like to see a more horizontally oriented Smash Bros. where not everyone's best approach options are from the air. Intricate ground combos and interactions and so forth, more like traditional fighters. Not that the aerial approaches would need much changing, just more ground options and universally increased gravity.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[KERO]

Honestly, I just want defensive options to be more viable than they are in Melee. I don't care what the speed of the game is. I'd really like a game where offensive and defensive play styles are viable, with neither being generally superior to the other.

As a defensive player, I of course lean toward Brawl, but it'd be really neat if shutting out the opponent required more thought and risk than it does in Brawl (not to say Brawl doesn't have that, but I'd like it to be more widespread) while not being too overwhelming.

 

[Hong]

This poll gave me nothing to vote on.

I don't want it to be more like Melee.
I don't want it to be more like Brawl.
I don't want it to be more like 64, either. But if Nintendo wants to make an expansion pack for 64, I'll take it.
I want them to make a game.

I want Smash 4 to be a good game. It does not need to emulate Melee or Brawl to be a good game. It should do what makes for an engaging, heavily skill-indexed, fun product. I would be so bold as to say that in the vague sense it does not need to be Smash Bros, as we know it, to be a fun game. Go ahead. Break rules. Shake up the formula if it will make for a more fun game.

As an example: I am not upset over wavedashing being removed because wavedashing was removed, but I am still in favour of the game having more movement options. That being a short, elaborate dash, something you'll find in the majority of fighters. They don't need to be more like Melee to add a dash to the game; it could be an inherent function that uses a more simplified input.

That's just an example. The same line of thinking can be applied to many things.

 

[bkslider]

I wouldn't mind haveing some Melee elements, especially L-cancelling, being put into a faster Brawl-style game. However, I really just want a balanced roster. They can add or take away any techniques as long as we don't get another Brawl Ganondorf.

 

[Snakeyes]

None of the above. I want it to be its own thing.

 

[APC99]

I always feared this subject.

I'm not looking at this as a competitive player, or a Melee fan, or a Brawl fan. I'm looking at this as a Smash fan. What's the point of making a new game if you're just taking the engine from another game and making it look pretty? Melee and Brawl both had their faults, but there's a lot that they improved. I want SSB4 to have what made Brawl and Melee (and Smash 64) great, but also it's own thing. What's the point of buying a game if it's literally the same as the game you already own?

So no, it shouldn't be Melee 2.0. Not Brawl 2.0. Not Smash 64 2.0. It should be Smash 4.

I despise the fact that people go "Oh, it's not Melee. I'm not playing". It's stupid. We as a community need to move on from the past and accept the new game as it's own game.

I'm not continuing this, though, as I know I'll probably end up way too off-topic.

 

[Renji64]

I want the game to have the best qualities from melee and n64 i'm not seeing anything that makes it any different from brawl.

 

[κomıc]

I want the game to have the best qualities from melee and n64 i'm not seeing anything that makes it any different from brawl.

The speed and no tripping.

Of course, the game is still in development.

 

[LancerStaff]

I want the game to have the best qualities from melee and n64 i'm not seeing anything that makes it any different from brawl.

You're complaining to give non-Brawlers a bad image. I mean, you're blinding yourself from the truth so you can justify your complaining.

 

[ProjectAngel]

Smash 4 needs to stand on its own two feet, not be a carbon copy of either one of the previous three installments.

 

[GreatGonzales]

It should be interesting to see how this poll compares to the large-scale survey I ran back in 2013. For those who missed those results, check it out:

The Great Smash Census

I guess I should also test the waters - would people be interested in me doing another survey like this after Smash 4 has released?

 

[LancerStaff]

It should be interesting to see how this poll compares to the large-scale survey I ran back in 2013. For those who missed those results, check it out:

The Great Smash Census

I guess I should also test the waters - would people be interested in me doing another survey like this after Smash 4 has released?

I'd love to see that. I'd wait until we get a tier list though, so it's not all hype clogging the polls.

And it'd be great if there was a way to get Japan and a larger percent of casuals in there, because I'm interested in what Japan thinks and I can't help but feel that there's a significant bias against casual play in the last one.

 

[JFM2796]

I'll be getting the new Smash for the purposes of a party game to play with friends no matter what. However, I would like to see this game succeed on the competitive level as well. I'm sure the game will no matter what, but it would be cool to have the game still be popular competitively thirteen years after its release. I think the best way to do that is to have the engine build off of Melee's (not a direct port, obviously) seeing as Melee, at least gameplay-wise was the most universally liked. Competitive players enjoyed the technical depth, movement options, and combo potential, while everyone I know who played the game casually never had an issue with it. I was five when it came out and I had no issues with the controls whatsoever.

It would be nice to see most mechanics that have been present in most Smash games return, such as DI, SDI, teching, powershielding, crouch cancelling, autocancelling, etc. Seems like light-shielding is a lost cause at this point, unfortunately.

In terms of expanding on Melee, I would like to see directional air dodging return while adding a new mechanic that obsoletes the need for wavedashing (at least for most characters). I'm picturing some sort of back walk feature, allowing a character to move backwards while still facing in one direction, kind of like traditional fighting games. Perhaps it could be done by holding R and moving the joystick. Seeing as L and R do the same thing in Smash this shouldn't be a big loss, and players who used to shield with R could choose to map it that way in the settings. While back walking, the character can perform tilts and jabs and anything else that can be done from a normal walk. In a sense, it is simply a more intuitive and natural looking wavedash.

As for L-Cancelling, they could probably just bring it back with no fuss, but it would be nice to see it expanded upon a bit as well. I would like there to be a reason to not always L-Cancel an aerial, perhaps during landing lag from an aerial you recieve less knockback from attacks in a vein similar to crouch cancelling, while L-Cancelled aerials suffer normal or perhaps increased knockback. This would create a dynamic where you want to L-Cancel when on the offensive and not L-Cancel when on the defensive. This would allow L-Cancelling to lose the stigma of being an arbitrary tech barrier.

However, it is looking like the new Smash will be it's own beast entirely, which is fine. I want to reserve judgement until we have the final game and have analyzed it, and I'm sure the game will have a competitive scene that goes strong at least for a while. However, I would like to see the game have a lasting appeal competitively like Melee does, with a meta that is still active and changing and even growing well over a decade after release. I think the best way to do this is to expand upon Melee's mechanics which clearly have stood the test of time.

 

[κomıc]

It should be interesting to see how this poll compares to the large-scale survey I ran back in 2013. For those who missed those results, check it out:

The Great Smash Census

I guess I should also test the waters - would people be interested in me doing another survey like this after Smash 4 has released?

I say do it within 6 months since that is plenty of time for people to adjust and then maybe a full year later (2016) if you're alive by then.

 

[Mr. KoopaTurtle]

I want something fun.

I want Smash 4 to be it's own thing. I want to see my favorite Nintendo characters duke it out in iconic stages with fast and fluid gameplay. I want a new experience thay none of the other three games could offer. And from what I've seen so far, Smash 4 delivers that.

People really need to stop being so quick to compare this game to previous ones.

I loved 64.
I loved Melee.
I loved Brawl.
I'm going to love Smash 4.

It's a new game, new feel, new experience. There is great competitive potential in this game, but it's sad to see there are those who aren't willing to give it a chance.

As long as Smash 4 can deliver something that makes it fun and sets it apart, I don't see too many problems.

 

[pickle962]

L-Cancelling or some variant of it (or just a mass reduction in aerial landing lag in general) would be sweet

 

[Cassio]

No good poll options. I read a book on Nintendo once, when it comes to gameplay development this is basically their philosophy:

Being innovative and creating things people dont know they want yet is hard. When you ask some people what they want in a new smash game theyll say wave dashing, and if you asked what they wanted before smash came out theyd probably say a traditional fighting game with smash characters.

 

[JV5Chris]

No good poll options. I read a book on Nintendo once, when it comes to gameplay development this is basically their philosophy:

Being innovative and creating things people dont know they want yet is hard. When you ask some people what they want in a new smash game theyll say wave dashing, and if you asked what they wanted before smash came out theyd probably say a traditional fighting game with smash characters.

It's also worth noting both cars and carriages use wheels . One past innovation can lead to another and make that new idea that much stronger.

What previous Smash games offer is far from a tapped resource. I actually think expanding, polishing, and mixing a number of elements from the previous games would result in a far more unique and richer experience than only considering new innovations that stand by themselves. It'd also be a much more practical and productive starting point for brainstorming in the first place.

 

[LancerStaff]

It's also worth noting both cars and carriages use wheels . One past innovation can lead to another and make that new idea that much stronger.

What previous Smash games offer is far from a tapped resource. I actually think expanding, polishing, and mixing a number of elements from the previous games would result in a far more unique and richer experience than only considering new innovations that stand by themselves. It'd also be a much more practical and productive starting point for brainstorming in the first place.

Ten-to-one Sakurai keeps rehauling and rehauling SSB to prevent the sequelitis that basically every other fight game series has.

The very fact that there's fairly significant fanbases for all of the current games shows it's working.

 

[JV5Chris]

Ten-to-one Sakurai keeps rehauling and rehauling SSB to prevent the sequelitis that basically every other fight game series has.

If that's really the case, what's going on with Smash 4? This isn't a franchise re-envisionment like SFIV, a reboot like KI, or even comparable with Mortal Kombat X in terms clear, fundamental changes to the systems and gameplay.

I'm not the type to think every installment needs to turn a series inside-out, but I do see Smash 4 shaping up to be a more straightforward sequel. Nothing wrong with that, just that in Smash's case, why not re-explore their treasure chest of past proven gameplay and experiment with it? Besides, there's a whole new generation of players that have experienced Brawl but know little of Melee or 64.

 

[LancerStaff]

If that's really the case, what's going on with Smash 4? This isn't a franchise re-envisionment like SFIV, a reboot like KI, or even comparable with Mortal Kombat X in terms clear, fundamental changes to the systems and gameplay.

I'm not the type to think every installment needs to turn a series inside-out, but I do see Smash 4 shaping up to be a more straightforward sequel. Nothing wrong with that, just that in Smash's case, why not re-explore their treasure chest of past proven gameplay and experiment with it? Besides, there's a whole new generation of players that have experienced Brawl but know little of Melee or 64.

We've seen very little so far and already, the changes will have significant effects. I have no doubt that there will be more in store.

 

[JV5Chris]

We've seen very little so far and already, the changes will have significant effects. I have no doubt that there will be more in store.

I don't know how much or little we've seen or what level of impact anything will ultimately have on the gameplay. All I know is the game is likely releasing 4-5 months away from E3 2014, just like Brawl with E4All.

 

[Morbi]

I am somewhere in the middle. I do not really want the game to just be "between Brawl and Melee." I would prefer that it predominantly takes after Melee. The fast-paced technical game-play is a lot more fun to play and watch if I am to be utterly honest. However, I still want it to be its own game. If I wanted Melee, I would play Melee.

 

[Ragel]

Recently I've been pretty dissapointed in Smash U. Mii's and Pac-Man (at least he's the better version) kinda made me sad, was expecting some dissapointment but Mii's have just hurt me hard , glad they at least aren't used online. I, like many others, want it to be something new. Not Brawl or Melee, but Smash U. So far it feels like a Brawl U, but I'm hoping they add something fresh to keep it it's own feel. I like new scenery, I like new characters and move sets. But it needs to be more than just that.

 

[Renji64]

I wish there 2 verisons of smash one similar to melee and then the current brawl 2.0 one we have now.

 

[8-peacock-8]

Balance between the two.

 

[Bladeviper]

I wish there 2 verisons of smash one similar to melee and then the current brawl 2.0 one we have now.

i fail to see how its brawl 2.0 at all, it seems like its it own game. The ground and air game is completely different from both melee and brawl, the ledge mechanics are different from ether game as well.

 

[JV5Chris]

i fail to see how its brawl 2.0 at all, it seems like its it own game. The ground and air game is completely different from both melee and brawl, the ledge mechanics are different from ether game as well.

Probably has something to do with most of the changes being in response to things in Brawl. The ground game does looks stronger than the last installment, but I'm struggling to see much that hasn't existed in some context before. The ledge has the most apparent differences, but it's less new gameplay and more moving scenarios away from it, similar to Brawl before planking entered the meta game.

 

[Renji64]

i fail to see how its brawl 2.0 at all, it seems like its it own game. The ground and air game is completely different from both melee and brawl, the ledge mechanics are different from ether game as well.

There isn't much different going on other than a new ledge game. It looks and plays like brawl.

 

[Senario]

i fail to see how its brawl 2.0 at all, it seems like its it own game. The ground and air game is completely different from both melee and brawl, the ledge mechanics are different from ether game as well.

The ledge is pretty much free. If you are the one recovering you almost always will get the ledge. Recoveries go too far in this game and blast zones are also too far out. Dashing mechanics and landing lag are still restrictive like brawl and knock back is inconsistent for followups. And of course there is Sakurai's spotty balancing method where he balances some around four player ffa and some around 1v1...plus stage balancing with many being ruined competitively by stage bosses.

 

[Bladeviper]

The ledge is pretty much free. If you are the one recovering you almost always will get the ledge. Recoveries go too far in this game and blast zones are also too far out. Dashing mechanics and landing lag are still restrictive like brawl and knock back is inconsistent for followups. And of course there is Sakurai's spotty balancing method where he balances some around four player ffa and some around 1v1...plus stage balancing with many being ruined competitively by stage bosses.

how are many stages ruined by bosses, we know 2 possibly 3 stages with bosses on them. so many ruined.

 

[Senario]

how are many stages ruined by bosses, we know 2 possibly 3 stages with bosses on them. so many ruined.

So far, megaman, mii stage, metroid (apparently) across both versions. And who knows what else since we don't have all of the stages revealed. The fact that a lot of stages have even more walk offs just makes for even less viable stages for competitive. Sure, not the biggest concern but I would like to see at least 4 stages that work for competitive if the mechanics work for competitive play. Otherwise we will just all go to battlefield or fd. Which is completely stereotypical for fd. A bit annoyed that Sakurai made for glory mode fd only when even nintendo acknowledged that battlefield is the better competitive stage for invitational grand finals. It shows who is doing their homework on the competitive scene.

 

[Bladeviper]

So far, megaman, mii stage, metroid (apparently) across both versions. And who knows what else since we don't have all of the stages revealed. The fact that a lot of stages have even more walk offs just makes for even less viable stages for competitive. Sure, not the biggest concern but I would like to see at least 4 stages that work for competitive if the mechanics work for competitive play. Otherwise we will just all go to battlefield or fd. Which is completely stereotypical for fd. A bit annoyed that Sakurai made for glory mode fd only when even nintendo acknowledged that battlefield is the better competitive stage for invitational grand finals. It shows who is doing their homework on the competitive scene.

except you only mentioned bosses ruining stages nothing else which is all i commented on, also whats is the 3ds metroid stage cause pyrosphere is only confirmed on wii u at this point with no mention of a 3ds stage that i can find. I am pretty sure there will be more then 4 stages hell unless all the revealed stages now are unfit there is more then 4

 

[Cassio]

Senario thats a pretty poor analysis.

There isn't much different going on other than a new ledge game. It looks and plays like brawl.

But youre wrong. May as well call melee 64 2.0.

 

[Joe73191]

I honestly would not be surprised if the game has a "melee mode". There won't be a need for a PMU if that is the case, and it would be exactly what the doctor ordered as far as a balance between the two. The normal or standard mode being more like brawl and a "melee mode" which the esports and competitive crowd can embrace and make amazing. Honestly I have a gut feeling about this.

 

[Deleted member]

Smash Bros. 4 should be its own game, not a copy of Melee or Brawl (and SSB64). It's a balance between the two games. I mean, sure, Melee is at the top along with Project M, but you know, let's give it a chance. Like APC99 said, we should move on and accept it as a new game.